THE MATTER REGARDING HAVING A KAFIR DO KUFR

[Julaybib]

The Matter Regarding Having a Kafir Do Kufr

بِسْمِ اللهِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي بِنِعْمَتِهِ تَتِمُّ الصَّالِحَاتُ

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (in the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful),

Among the matters discussed most today is, the matter which is called ‘having a Kafir do Kufr or guiding a Kafir to perform Kufr’. The reason such matter has come to the agenda of many is due to the inability of signing or consenting to the Kufr in contracts regarding daily needs such as heat and hydro, it has become the question that rises in the minds of many. Among those who debate this matter one side claims this act to be consent to Kufr and therefore the one who acts upon such will become Kafir, and they even go further on making Takfir of those who do not call such action to be Kufr. Their opponent on the other hand states this action to have no relation with consenting to Kufr and acts upon it without having any problem or worries.

Regarding those who call this act to be Kufr it would become a great debate to see whether or not they actually implement this into their lives. As an actual fact, regardless of what they say, we have never come across anyone who lives without electricity or water due to abstinence from contracts containing Kufr.

Just as we have not come across anyone who is hungry (starving), thirsty, jobless or homeless due to matters of Din. I do not say this thinking people must deprive themselves of such mercy; this is just an evaluation of a matter. Anyone can critique as they wish. However I do think that we should all put aside dreams of easily entering into Jannah (Paradise) without having to go through even one thousandth of what the Ashab (companions of the Prophet) went through.  Allah Ta’ala states:

أَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ أَن تَدْخُلُواْ الْجَنَّةَ وَلَمَّا يَأْتِكُم مَّثَلُ الَّذِينَ خَلَوْاْ مِن قَبْلِكُم مَّسَّتْهُمُ الْبَأْسَاء وَالضَّرَّاء وَزُلْزِلُواْ حَتَّى يَقُولَ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ مَتَى نَصْرُ اللّهِ أَلا إِنَّ نَصْرَ اللّهِ قَرِيبٌ

”Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? they encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah." Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!” (al-Baqarah 2/214)

When it comes to the matter of ‘having or guiding a Kafir to perform an act of Kufr’ even the given name of the matter reeks of ignorance. There is not a single matter with such given title in the sight of the past scholars. The scholars have debated about matters such as ‘consenting to Kufr being Kufr’ and as they have made Ijmaa (consensus) regarding most points they have differentiated in the details. They have also debated regarding the the Ahl-i Dhimmah (Jews, Christians) who live under the Islamic state banner and guiding or leading them to their own Kufr courts. In the terms of the Ulama (scholars) if there was a matter that may be close to today’s incidences it would be the matter of consenting to the Kufr of another. The scholars have also debated about the issue of the permissibility to lead the Ahl-i Dhimma to their own courts in the Islamic State. Evidences will be provided regarding such matters Inshallah.

Our aim in this Risalah (article) is to show how the scholars have viewed this matter and to shed light on it, biiznillah (with the permit of Allah). this matter in hand and write about it, so that we may be able to present such excuse in the presents of Allah even though we have little hope that the matter will be understood due to the widespread Jahiliyyah (pre-İslamic era of ignorance) around the world. Our purpose is not to support any view or side with neither those who claim having a Kafir do Kufr is Kufr nor with those who claim it is not. We are distant from all sides who debate regarding this matter, since all of these are nothing but Fatawa (verdicts) given without knowledge in order to gain worldly things; which is still wrong even if they do reach the correct verdict. Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) stated:

مَنْ قَالَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِرَأْيِهِ فَأَصَابَ فَقَدْ أَخْطَأَ

“He who interprets the Qur'an with his own opinion and is correct, has indeed erred.” (Abu Dawud, #3652; Tirmidhi, #320);

مَنْ قَالَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ

“He who interprets the Qur'an without knowledge let him prepare his place in Hell-fire.” (Tirmidhi, #2950)

If we are to summarize the essence of the matter: For the person who is truly Ahl Tawhid (People of Tawhid), just as it is Kufr to sign a document containing Kufr (i.e., such as ‘the courts of Taghout is authorized when in disagreement’ etc.,) when the document carries ones name on it, it will also be Kufr for one (i.e., the person amongst the Ahl Tawhid) to have someone else sign such agreement. It is because in such case one will have shown consent to Kufr. However, a Kafir signing such document under his own (the Kafir) name is different and the case would necessitate details. In the sight of many, both cases seem to be similar when it actually is not.

Regarding this matter firstly we would like to present the evidences in regards to the Ikhtilaaf (disagreement) concerning the Kuffar being driven to their own courts. In Surah al-Ma’idah Ayah 5/42 Allah Ta’ala stated:

فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وَإِنْ تُعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ فَلَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ شَيْئًا وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

“(They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth those who judge in equity.” (al-Ma’idah 5/42)

In Surah al-Ma’idah Ayah 5/48 which is said to have been Nash (abrogated) of the above Ayah (i.e., al-Ma’idah 5/42), Allah Ta'ala stated:

فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ

“...so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires.” (al-Ma’idah 5/48)

Under the heading ‘Judging between the Ahl-i Kitab (People of the Book; Jews & Christians)’ in his Ahkam’ul Qur’an, Jassas (d. 370H) from among the Hanafi Ulama (pl., Alim; scholars), had stated the following regarding this matter:

قال الله تعالى فَإِنْ جاؤُكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ ظَاهِرُ ذَلِكَ يَقْتَضِي مَعْنَيَيْنِ أَحَدُهُمَا تَخْلِيَتُهُمْ وَأَحْكَامَهُمْ مِنْ غَيْرِ اعْتِرَاضٍ عَلَيْهِمْ وَالثَّانِي التَّخْيِيرُ بَيْنَ الْحُكْمِ وَالْإِعْرَاضِ إذَا ارْتَفَعُوا إلَيْنَا وَقَدْ اخْتَلَفَ السَّلَفُ فِي بَقَاءِ هَذَا الْحُكْمِ فَقَالَ قَائِلُونَ مِنْهُمْ إذَا ارْتَفَعُوا إلَيْنَا فَإِنْ شَاءَ الْحَاكِمُ حَكَمَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنْ شَاءَ أَعْرَضَ عَنْهُمْ وَرَدَّهُمْ إلَى دِينِهِمْ وَقَالَ آخَرُونَ التَّخْيِيرُ مَنْسُوخٌ فَمَتَى ارْتَفَعُوا إلَيْنَا حَكَمْنَا بَيْنَهُمْ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَخْيِيرٍ فَمِمَّنْ أَخَذَ بِالتَّخْيِيرِ عِنْدَ مَجِيئِهِمْ إلَيْنَا الْحَسَنُ وَالشَّعْبِيُّ وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ رِوَايَةً وَرُوِيَ عَنْ الْحَسَنِ خَلُّوا بَيْنَ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَبَيْنَ حَاكِمِهِمْ وَإِذَا ارْتَفَعُوا إلَيْكُمْ فَأَقِيمُوا عَلَيْهِمْ مَا فِي كِتَابِكُمْ وَرَوَى سُفْيَانَ بْنِ حُسَيْنٍ عَنْ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ آيَتَانِ نُسِخَتَا مِنْ سُورَةِ الْمَائِدَةِ آيَةُ الْقَلَائِدِ وقَوْله تَعَالَى فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ

Allah Ta’ala stated: “If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere.” (al-Ma’idah 5/42) The Dhahir of this has two meanings:

The first is, to abandon them and their judgments and the second is to leave the option regarding judging between them to the judge, or declining to interfere. The Salaf (predecessor) have disagreed regarding whether or not this Hukm (ruling) still continues. Some amongst them have said: When the Ahl-i Kitab bring their lawsuit to us if the judge wills he will judge between them if not he will decline and send them to their own Din (laws). Others have said: The judge having this option has been Nash (abrogated). Whenever they bring their matters to us we will judge between them. There is no option in this.

Hasan (al-Basri), ash-Shabi and Ibrahim (an-Nakhai) are among those (scholars) who claim it is optional to look after the case of the Kuffar when they come to us with it. In another narration from al-Hasan he states: “Withdraw from between the Ahl Kitab and their judges, whenever they come to you judge them with your book (i.e., the Qur’an).”

After discussing the details of the evidences Jassas chooses the view that it is Wajib (obligatory) for the Muslim Judge to look after the matters of the Kuffar. After providing evidence he stated:

قَوْله تَعَالَى فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ يَدُلُّ عَلَى نَسْخِ التَّخْيِيرِ عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ بَيَانِهِ قَوْله تَعَالَى وَلا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْواءَهُمْ يَدُلُّ عَلَى بُطْلَانِ قَوْلِ مَنْ يَرُدُّهُمْ إلَى الْكَنِيسَةِ أَوْ الْبِيعَةِ لِلِاسْتِحْلَافِ لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ تعظيم الموضع وهم يهون ذَلِكَ وَقَدْ نَهَى اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْ اتِّبَاعِ أَهْوَائِهِمْ وَيَدُلُّ عَلَى بُطْلَانِ قَوْلِ مَنْ يَرُدُّهُمْ إلَى دِينِهِمْ لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ اتِّبَاعِ أَهْوَائِهِمْ وَالِاعْتِدَادِ بِأَحْكَامِهِمْ وَلِأَنَّ رَدَّهُمْ إلَى أَهْلِ دِينِهِمْ إنَّمَا هُوَ رَدٌّ لَهُمْ لِيَحْكُمُوا فِيهِمْ بِمَا هُوَ كُفْرٌ بِاَللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إذْ كَانَ حُكْمُهُمْ بِمَا يَحْكُمُونَ بِهِ كُفْرًا بِاَللَّهِ وَإِنْ كَانَ مُوَافِقًا لَمَا أُنْزِلَ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ لِأَنَّهُمْ مَأْمُورُونَ بِتَرْكِهِ وَاتِّبَاعِ شَرِيعَةِ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

“The Ayah “so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires.” (al-Ma’idah  5/48) shows the option (to choose or not to choose to judge) was abrogated. The statement of Allah Ta’ala “follow not their vain desires” is evidence for the falsehood of those who turn them (i.e., the Ahl Dhimmah) away to their churches and synagogues for them to take oath. Hence here there is Tadhim (venerate) of these places, whereas Allah Ta’ala had abolished from following their vain desires. This also shows the falsehood of those who turns them to their own Din (religion) because in this case it means following their desires and accepting the validity of their Hukm (laws). By turning them away to those of the same Din as them would be sending them to their Hukm of Kufr which is denial of Allah Azza wa Jall. Hence the Ahkam (pl., Hukm; rulings) they rule with are Kufr; meaning Ahkam that mean Kufr Billah (rejecting Allah). Even if these Ahkam suit the Tawrah (Torah) and the Injil (Bible) they are still responsible with rejecting these and following the Shari'ah of Nabi sallalahu alayhi was sallam.”

As seen Jassas criticizes the view of having the option to turn them to their own and says this would mean promoting the Kufr Ahkam of the Kuffar. However as he does state this it is clear that he does not make Takfir of the scholars who are in opposition. Consequently while criticizing the given option, the Illah (reason) he brings forth such as sending them to their own churches or synagogues and the courts, leading to exalting them, are claims that could be brought forward indirectly, or else it is evident that these scholars have no intent of respecting their Kufr Ahkam. As seen, contrary to the ignorant, the scholars view of matters is very vast and even while criticizing their opponent they do not leave their scale aside. There is really no need to comment much on this matter; hence Jassas does accept that during the first years of Islam, Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi was sallam) did send the Kuffar to their own courts. If this was to be explained as ‘following their vain desires’ then this would lead to accusing Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi was sallam) of such. Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi was sallam) could not be accused with following their own vains. The statements in which Jassas accepts this are as follows:

فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُخَيَّرًا إنْ شَاءَ حَكَمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْهُمْ فَرَدَّهُمْ إلَى أَحْكَامِهِمْ حَتَّى نَزَلَتْ وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِما أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْواءَهُمْ فَأَمَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ

“Rasulullah sallalahu alayhi was sallam had the option of giving Hukm among them and if willed he would give judgment if he willed he would turn from them and thus turn them to their own Ahkam. This continued until the Ayah “so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires.” (al-Ma’idah  5/48) was revealed.  By this Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi was sallam) had been commanded with passing judgment between them with what had been revealed by Allah in His book.” (see Abubakr al-Jassas, Ahkam’ul Qur’an, 4/87-97, Kamhawi, Dar’ut Turas, Bairut, 1405)

While on the topic of Jassas we would like to mention that he was lenient towards the Mu'tazilah school of thought. The members of Mu'tazilah interpret the rule ‘consent to Kufr is Kufr’ from a tight angle and have established Bid’ah in some matters. The lenience of Jassas towards the Mu'tazilah is clearly seen from his work regarding the Tafsir of Ayah 103 of Surah al-An'am he makes Ta'wil (interpretation) of the word Ru'yatullah (Allah Ta’ala being seen in the Akhirah i.e., hereafter by the believers) and states it means Ilm (knowledge) and does not accept the sight by human eye and also in his Tafsir of Ayah 102 of Surah al-Baqarah he tries to deny the reality of Sihr (magic). Likewise he criticizes Mu'awiyah (radiyallahu anh) in his Tafsir of Surah al-Hajj Ayaat 39-41, Surah an-Nur Ayah 55 and in Surah al-Hujurat Ayah 9. Where as the base characteristic of the Ahl Sunnah is to love and pray for Rahmah (mercy) upon all Ashab without distinction.  Mentioned sections could be found in Ahkam al-Qur'an. His view of having the option of sending the Kuffar to their own courts resembling the Kufr of considering their Ahkam to be valid is something that is unique to him as far as we have come to know.  In our shallow research we have not come across any other who views the matter as such. Allah knows best.

In his an Nash wa’l Mansukh, an-Nahhas (d338H) explains the matter and points out that al-Hasan (al-Basri), ash-Sha’bi, Ibrahim (an-Nakhai), Imam Malik, and Ata al-Khurasani carry the view that the Kuffar should be turned to their own Ahkam and explains the view of this option being abrogated.

وَمِنَ الْعُلَمَاءِ مَنْ قَالَ إِذَا تَحَاكَمَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ فَعَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ وَسُنَّةِ رَسُولِهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَا يَحِلُّ لَهُ أَنْ يَرُدَّهُمْ إِلَى حُكَّامِهِمْ، وَقَائِلُوا هَذَا الْقَوْلِ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّ الْآيَةَ مَنْسُوخَةٌ لِأَنَّهَا إِنَّمَا نَزَلَتْ أَوَّلَ مَا قَدِمَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْمَدِينَةَ وَالْيَهُودُ فِيهَا يَوْمَئِذٍ كَثِيرٌ فَكَانَ الْأَدْعَى لَهُمْ وَالْأَصْلَحُ أَنْ يُرَدُّوا إِلَى حُكَّامِهِمْ فَلَمَّا قَوِيَ الْإِسْلَامُ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى {وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ} [المائدة: 49] فَمِمَّنْ قَالَ بِهَذَا الْقَوْلِ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَجَمَاعَةٌ مِنَ التَّابِعِينَ وَالْفُقَهَاءِ

“Some among the Ulama state such: When the Ahl Kitab are judged  by the Imam (of the Muslimin) he must judge with the book of Allah Azza wa Jall and the Sunnah of the Rasul sallalahu alayhi was sallam. It would not be permissible to turn them to their own Ahkam. Those who carry this view state: The statement of Allah Ta’ala: “If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere.” (al-Ma’idah 5/42) had been abrogated. The reason is because this command had been revealed when Rasulullah sallalahu alayhi was sallam had first come to Madinah. At that time the Jews were many in number in Madinah. The act which was more fitting that would warm them to Islam was that they be sent to their own judges. When Islam was strengthened Allah revealed: “...so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires.” (al-Ma’idah  5/48). The view of Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) and a group from the Taabi'in (the generation that followed the Sahabah and learned from them) and the Fuqaha (pl., Faqih; jurists) was as such.”

While mentioning its Isnad (chain of reciters) an-Nahhas states Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) said:

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ كَمَا حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبَّادٌ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، عَنِ الْحَكَمِ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: " نُسِخَتْ مِنْ هَذِهِ السُّورَةِ يَعْنِي الْمَائِدَةَ آيَتَانِ آيَةُ الْقَلَائِدِ وَقَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى: {فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ} فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُخَيَّرًا إِنْ شَاءَ حَكَمَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنْ شَاءَ أَعْرَضَ عَنْهُمْ فَرَدَّهُمْ إِلَى حُكَّامِهِمْ فَنَزَلَتْ {وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ} [المائدة: 49] فَأُمِرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِأَنْ يَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا فِي كِتَابِنَا " وَهَذَا إِسْنَادٌ مُسْتَقِيمٌ وَأَهْلُ الْحَدِيثِ يُدْخِلُونَهُ فِي الْمُسْنَدِ وَهُوَ مَعَ هَذَا قَوْلُ جَمَاعَةٍ مِنَ الْعُلَمَاءِ

“Two Ayat from Surah al-Mai’dah had been abrogated. The first is the Ayah regarding the necklace and the second is “If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere.” (al-Ma’idah 5/42) Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi was sallam had the option of judging between them and if he willed he could judge between them and if he willed he could turn them down and send them to their own Ahkam. This continues until the Ayah: “...so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires.” (al-Ma’idah 5/48) was revealed.  With this Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi was salam was commanded with judging between the Ahl Kitab with the Book of Allah.”

Abu Ja'far an-Nahhas stated: This is a right Isnad. The Ahli Hadith have accounted it to be Musnad (Isnad that extends to the Rasul). At the same time this is the view of a group of scholars. 

[Note: the scholars whom have narrated the same statements from Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) as “he turned them to their own judges” are as follows Dhiya al-Maqdisi, in his al-Muhtara which contains Hadith not mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim 13/80; Tabarani Mu’jam’ul Kabir 11/63-64 #11054. And with the wording “He turned them to the Ahkam of another” Dhiya al-Makdisi in the same place he mentioned the above; Bayhaqi, Ma’rifat’us Sunani wa’l Athar #16983; Tahawi, Sharhu Mushkil’il Athar, 11/438 #4540; Ibnu Abi Hatim, Tafsir, Mai'dah, 42-51; Nasai, Sunnan’ul Kubra #6336 & #7181]

an-Nahhas continues to say:

وَالْقَوْلُ بِأَنَّهَا مَنْسُوخَةٌ قَوْلُ عِكْرِمَةَ، وَالزُّهْرِيِّ، وَعُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ وَالسُّدِّيِّ وَهُوَ الصَّحِيحُ مِنْ قَوْلِ الشَّافِعِيِّ قَالَ فِي كِتَابِ الْجِزْيَةِ وَلَا خِيَارَ لَهُ إِذَا تَحَاكَمُوا إِلَيْهِ لِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ {حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ} [التوبة: 29] وَهَذَا مِنْ أَصَحِّ الِاحْتِجَاجَاتِ لِأَنَّهُ إِذَا كَانَ مَعْنَى {وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ} [التوبة: 29] أَنْ تَجْرِيَ عَلَيْهِمْ أَحْكَامُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَجَبَ أَلَّا يُرَدُّوا إِلَى حُكَّامِهِمْ فَإِذَا وَجَبَ هَذَا فَالْآيَةُ مَنْسُوخَةٌ وَهُوَ أَيْضًا قَوْلُ الْكُوفِيِّينَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وزُفَرَ وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٍ لَا اخْتِلَافَ بَيْنَهُمْ إِذَا تَحَاكَمَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ، أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ أَنْ يُعْرِضَ عَنْهُمْ غَيْرَ أَنَّ أَبَا حَنِيفَةَ قَالَ إِذَا جَاءَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ وَالزَّوْجُ فَعَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ فَإِنْ جَاءَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ وَحْدَهَا وَلَمْ يَرْضَ الزَّوْجُ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ وَقَالَ الْبَاقُونَ: بَلْ يَحْكُمُ فَثَبَتَ أَنَّ قَوْلَ أَكْثَرِ الْعُلَمَاءِ أَنَّ الْآيَةَ مَنْسُوخَةٌ

“Mujahid, Ikrimah, az-Zuhri, Umar ibn Abd'ul Aziz and as-Suddi carry the view that the option had been abrogated. This is the Sahih view of Shafii. In his Kitab'ul Jizyah Shafii stated: When they apply for his Hukm their is not room for option. The reason is because Allah commanded:

"Fight those (...) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (at-Tawbah 9/29)

an-Nahhas states: This is the most Sahih (sound) among the presented evidence. Hence the meaning of "feel themselves subdued" is the Ahkam of Islam should be implemented on them and it necessitates they are not sent to their own Ahkam. This (passing judgment between them) is Wajib (obligatory) therefore this Ayah is Mansukh (abrogated). At the same time this is the view of Abu Hanifah, Zufar, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad from among the Kufans. When the Ahl Kitab applies to the Hukm of the Imam, there is no Ikhtilaaf (disagreement) among the Ahl Kufa that he has no right to turn them back. Abu Hanifah stated: He is obligated to judge justly if a husband and wife is to come to him. If only the wife comes and not the husband he will not pass judgment among them. Others have said we will judge between them.

With this it has been established that according to the majority of the Ahl Ilm this Ayah (verse of the Qur'an) had been abrogated. (Abu Ja'far an-Nahhas, an-Nash wa’l Mansukh, 396-399, Maktabat’ul Falah, Kuwait,1408) The statements of an-Nahhas end here.

The statements of an-Nahhas have been taken in hand by Qurtubi and could be found in his Tafsir of Surah al-Mai'dah Ayah 5/42.

Although an-Nahhas states that the majority of the scholars agree this Ayah had been abrogated, Baghawi on the other hand claims the opposite in his Tafsir of Surah al-Mai'dah Ayah 5/42.

Also in his al-Mughni while Ibn Qudamah states the optional view belongs to Imam Ahmad and ash-Shafii, although he does point to the fact that the opposite is stated by these Imams as well. However the more accepted view from the Hanabila (scholars of the Hanbali Madhhab) is that the option is stable (meaning it is permissible to choose not to look after their ordeals). Ibn Qudamah points out the reason to be the fact that when there is the possibility to reconcile between two Ayaat than abrogation will not come into consideration. The command “so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed” (al-Ma’idah 5/48) will be explained as “if you are to judge”. Therefore judging between the Dhimmi with what Allah had revealed will not make it a barrier for it to be permissible to turn away from it. (Ibn Qudamah, al-Mughni, 7/348, Dar’ul Kutub’il Ilmiyyah, Bairut 2008)

One of the facts that the given option is not abrogated is the fact that it had been acted upon after Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi was sallam) it had been acted upon. Abd'ur Razzaq in Musannaf narrated the following:

عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا الثَّوْرِيُّ، عَنْ سِمَاكِ بْنِ حَرْبٍ، عَنْ قَابُوسِ بْنِ الْمُخَارِقِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ كَتَبَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ إِلَى عَلِيٍّ يَسْأَلُهُ: عَنْ مُسْلِمٍ زَنَى بِنَصْرَانِيَّةٍ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ: «أَنْ أَقِمْ لِلَّهِ الْحَدَّ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِ، وَادْفَعِ النَّصْرَانِيَّةَ إِلَى أَهْلِ دِينِهَا»

Abd'ur Razzaq stated: according to what Thawri narrated to us from Simak ibn Harb, him from Kabus ibn al-Muharik his father (al-Muharik) said: Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (radiyallhu anhuma ajmain) wrote a letter to Ali (radiyallahu anh) asking him the Hukm of the Muslim man who fornicated with a Christian woman. In response he wrote: “The Had punishment must be given to the Muslim and the Christian woman should be returned back to the people of her Din.” (Abd'ur Razzaq Musannaf, 6/62 #10005; Bayhaqi, as-Sunnan’ul Kubra #17121; ash-Shafii al-Umm, 7/183)

After narrating the Hadith, Bayhaqi has informed us that Imam ash-Shafii stated: “If this Hadith is stable it is proof that the Imam has the option to choose whether to pass judgment on them or to (send them back and) leave the Hukm to them.” Ibn Hazm (d. 456) in al-Muhalla criticized this option and claimed the Hadith of Ali (radiyallahu anh) is not stable due to the narrators Simak and Kabus. (Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla, 8/521, Dar’ul Fikr, Bairut)

Qurtubi narrates the Ikhtilaaf of scholars regarding this matter in his Tafsir of Surah al-Mai'dah Ayah 5/42. According to him, Zuhri stated: “the Sunnah is as such: Ahl Kitab will be returned in the matters between them, and in inheritance. However if they come requesting the Hukm of Allah then in this  case one will pass Hukm according to the Book of Allah.” For detail refer back to the Tafsir of Qurtubi regarding this mentioned Ayah.

The conclusion drawn from all these narrations is by the will of Allah the following:

Regarding this matter; is the Islamic court obligated to see the matters of the Kuffar who have come for judgment, or can they be turned to their own courts? The scholars have two views therefore this matter is one with Ikhtilaaf. If it had been Kufr to refer the Kuffar back to their courts as some ignorant people claim the scholars would not have made Ikhtilaaf.  Even if sending them back to their courts had been an abrogated matter it is known by the Hukm regarding Iman (belief) and Kufr (disbelief) abrogation does not happen. To begin Khatam’ul Anbiya (seal of the prophets; the last prophet) Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and all Rusul (prophets) are infallible from acting upon Kufr and Shirk. If sending the Kuffar back to their courts had been an act of Kufr than Rasullullah (sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) would never have acted upon this.

This is the explanation of the matter with the narrations. When looked at through the intellectual point sending the Kuffar to their courts being an act which one is pleased with Kufr is not a matter that is clear. The reason is because consent in Kufr means being pleased with Kufr. There is no evidence that the individual who does this is doing it because he is pleased with Kufr. The details will come in the future Inshallah (with the will of Allah).

Although the permissibility of this matter, referring the Kuffar to their own courts, is a matter of Ikhtilaaf; it is not Kufr. It is stable that Rasulullah (salllalahu alayhi wa sallam) acted upon this. There will be no distinction of Dar'ul Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar'ul Kufr (Abode of Kufr) in this matter because Kufr does not change from one place to another. Claiming this is another Kufr and deviation, unless one has a valid Ta’wil. In short just because one shows consent to the Kuffar being judged in their own courts this does not necessitate Kufr. If an individual is going to be made Takfir (excommunication) of for sending a Kafir to their own courts, this can not happen unless there is additional information which necessitates Kufr. Of course it is possible that when having a Kafir take over an agreement while referring back to his Kufr court there could be other acts or statements necessary such as exalting Kufr etc. Since those in opposition with us and ourselves have limited knowledge of the judicial system and procedures there is the possibility. Therefore if there is an additional Illah (reason) which necessitates Kufr this is the duty of a Mujtahid who acts upon His knowledge, who has the license to give Fatawa and Qada (ruling), otherwise for those who have not attained such level this is not something they have authority to do even though they may have some level of education. It is best to keep distant from that which the scholars had Ikhtilaaf over and to avoid any type of relationship with the Taghout. However calling this Kufr is Dalalah (deviation), and if one has fallen into a view such as to deny the evidences this is Kufr. To sum it all up; as we do not approve for someone to appoint a Kafir to make a contract/agreement (which states the Kafir appoints the Taghout courts as judge over himself) we do not find it appropriate to make Takfir of such individual who does so. Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows best)!..

[Julaybib]

Is the condition of the Ahl Dhimmi an exception to ‘Consent to Kufr is Kufr’?

It has been proven that sending the Ahl Dhimmi to their own courts is not an act of even Haram let alone being Kufr; it is stable that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had acted upon it in the past and some scholars have even stated that this hukm had not been abrogated and that it is still valid. Although all these matters have been clarified some have continued their stubbornness against the Haqq (truth) and have tried to impose Baatil (false) contemplation such as the following:

‘This was only a right given to the Ahl Kitaab (people of the book) in Dar'ul Islam (the Abode of Islam). Just as eating the animal slaughtered by the Ahl Kitaab and marrying their women folk is a given license, sending them to their own courts is also a license peculiar to the Ahl Kitaab and this Hukm could not be applied to those who are not Ahl Kitaab.’

If this statement had come from a scholar it may have been worth it to ponder upon it as an argument of Fiqh that has nothing to do with Iman and Kufr. However this is a statement which comes from ignorant individuals who do not stop here with their claims. They continue to add the following:

‘For this reason it is Kufr to return the non-Ahl Kitaab to their courts because it would be consenting to their Kufr.’

Allahu Akbar! This mere statement is sufficient to prove that those who carry this are examples of ignorant Kuffar individuals that are clueless of Tawhid and those who do not even have the knowledge of Iman and Kufr. The reason is because these individuals are incapable of perceiving the fact that there is no excuse for an act of Kufr except for Ikrah (coercion) therefore an act that is Kufr when done to the Mushrik could not be otherwise when done to the Ahl Kitaab. If returning the Kuffar back to their courts is an act of satisfaction and being pleased with Kufr; then how can this exact same act be an act that is permissible when it is done to one group (i.e., the Ahl Kitaab) and when the exact same thing is done to another group (the non-Ahl Kitaab i.e., a Mushrik) it becomes Kufr? These individuals are oblivious about the essence of Kufr and what it means. They have merely heard the names of such terms yet without comprehending what they are in reality they have named each act they see as consent to Kufr, to be Kufr with their scarce reasoning.

According to the claim of these individuals who are just as the Khawarij –as it was mentioned in the Ahadith- they recite the Qur’an but it does not go beyond their throats and they go out of the religion just as an arrow pierces its target (and they will not return to it just as the arrow does not return to the bow); Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Ashab were actually doing an act that is Kufr (according to the claim of some ignorant individuals the act of returning the Kuffar to their own courts) with the license given to them by Allah. We keep Allah, His Rasul and the Mu’minun free from such a thing. Their Qiyas is a Baatil Qiyas. Marrying the Kuffar, eating what they slaughter are not acts of Kufr that contradict Tawhid. These acts used to be acts which were permissible during the first era of Islam. Allah Ta'ala had later restricted them and exempted the Ahl Kitaab from such command and informed it is permissible to marry their women and to eat their slaughter. Whereas, the Kufr which carries the meaning of denying Allah and His Rasul has never been permissible to anyone during any era. Likewise Shirk meaning associating partnership to Allah in His Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah has never been permissible in the Shari'ah of any Prophet. Allah Ta’ala stated:

إِن تَكْفُرُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنكُمْ وَلَا يَرْضَى لِعِبَادِهِ الْكُفْرَ وَإِن تَشْكُرُوا يَرْضَهُ لَكُمْ

"If ye reject (Allah), Truly Allah hath no need of you; but He liketh not ingratitude from His servants: if ye are grateful, He is pleased with you." (az-Zumar 39/7);

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُواْ عِبَاداً لِّي مِن دُونِ اللّهِ وَلَـكِن كُونُواْ رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ وَلاَ يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَن تَتَّخِذُواْ الْمَلاَئِكَةَ وَالنِّبِيِّيْنَ أَرْبَاباً أَيَأْمُرُكُم بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ

"It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the Prophetic Office, should say to people: Be ye my worshipers rather than Allah's!.. On the contrary (he would say): Be ye worshipers of Him (Who is truly the Cherisher of all). For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly. Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (to Allah in Islam)?" (Al-i Imran 3/79-80)

Regardless of all these clear Nass, today many of those who are ignorant of Tawhid hold the Ahkam of Iman and Kufr on the same level with the Ahkam of Haraam and Halaal and have come to believe that, just as abrogation is made with Ahkam of Shari'ah it is made with Ahkam of Iman and Kufr as well; they also hold the belief that just as Tahsis (assignment) is made in matters of Muamalat (civil social transactions) they claim Tahsis is possible with matters of Iman and Kufr and that there may be exceptions in their Ahkam. Just as Hamr (alcohol) was permissible during the first era of Islam and it was made Haraam later on, these ignorant people have come to believe that an action that was not Kufr during the first era of Islam could be Kufr later on and vice versa. Likewise just as Sawm (fasting) in Ramadan is Fard (obligatory), when traveling or when ill, one has the license not to fast during that time, some ignorant people have come to believe that the Fard (obligation) of rejecting the Taghout could be abrogated in some cases; for example those who commit Kufr in Dar’ul Harb (the Abode of War). The situation of those who claim returning the Kuffar back to their courts is Kufr yet when it comes to the Ahl Kitaab there is an exception to it is no different from those mentioned above.

[Julaybib]

The Hukm (ruling) of Selling Idols to the Mushrikin (pl., Mushrik; Polytheists, Idol Worshipers)
 
One of the narrations which will enlighten us in the matter of encouraging a Kafir to act upon Kufr is the narration regarding Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) selling idols to the Kuffar. The Mufassirun (Scholars of Tafsir; Quranic exegesis) narrate the matter in Tahzib’ul Athar of Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (rahimahullah).

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ , عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ , عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ مَسْرُوقٍ بِالسِّلْسِلَةِ، فَمَرَّتْ عَلَيْهِ سَفِينَةٌ فِيهَا أَصْنَامُ ذَهَبٍ وَفِضَّةٍ، بَعَثَ بِهَا مُعَاوِيَةُ إِلَى الْهِنْدِ تُبَاعُ، فَقَالَ مَسْرُوقٌ: «لَوْ أَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقْتُلُونِي لَغَرَّقْتُهَا، وَلَكِنِّي أَخْشَى الْفِتْنَةَ»

“Muhammad ibn Bashshar informed us and said: Abd’ur Rahman informed us and said: Sufyan (Uyayna) from Amash and he from Abu Wail said: I was at a place called Silsilah with Masruq. Meanwhile a ship containing idols made from silver and gold passed us. Mu'awiya (radiyallahu anh) had send them to be sold in India. Upon this Masruq said: If I knew they were going to kill me I’d throw them into the water, however I fear Fitnah (trial).” (Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, Tahzib’ul Athar, Musnadu Ali, 241 #382)

His Shaykh which Tabari narrated from is Muhammad ibn Bashshar known as ‘Bundar’ and has been characterized to be trusted. (See Dhahabi, Siyaru A’lam’in Nubala, 12/144-149)

Abd’ur Rahman is the famous Abd’ur Rahman ibn Mahdi from the Jarh (narrator-criticism) and Ta'dil (narrator-accreditation) scholars. Ibn Hajar describes him as one who knows the sciences of Sika, Sabt, Hafidh, Hadith, and Rijaal (the science of Men; biographies of Hadith narrators).

Sufyan ibn Uyayna is an individual who is ‘Sika, Hafidh, Imam, and Hujjah’ as Ibn Hajar has described him. (Ibn Hajar, Takrib'ut Tahzib, 245, #2451)

Likewise, Amash and Abu Wail are Hadith Imams trusted by most scholars. Bukhari and Muslim have both narrated many Ahadith (pl., Hadith) from them both. (See Siyaaru A’lam’in Nubala, 6/226-250 and 4/161-166)

Masruq is a great scholar from the Tabiin. (See Siyaaru A’lam’in Nubala, 4/63-69)

In short, although it is not our job to prove the soundness of the narration, trusted narrators recount it. Without any rejection to the Isnaad (chain of narration) or the text of the narration, Tabari uses this narration as evidence to the permissibility of destroying things, that lead to Munkar (evil) such as idols, musical, instruments etc and that the Salaf (predecessors) would destroy them, without any rejection to the text. Similar is in Ibn Abi Shayba’s Musannaf. Ibn Abi Shayba has opened a new chapter regarding the Hukm (ruling) of the sale of idols and has written the following Hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا الْأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ شَقِيقٍ، عَنْ مَسْرُوقٍ، قَالَ: مَرَّ عَلَيْهِ وَهُوَ بِالسِّلْسِلَةِ بِتَمَاثِيلَ مِنْ صُفْرٍ تُبَاعُ، فَقَالَ مَسْرُوقٌ: لَوْ أَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ شِقْصٌ لَغَرِمْتُهَا، وَلَكِنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يُعَذِّبَنِي فَمَنَعَنِي وَاللَّهِ مَا أَدْرِي أَيَّ الرَّجُلَيْنِ: رَجُلٌ قَدْ زُيِّنَ لَهُ سُوءُ عَمَلِهِ، أَوْ رَجُلٌ قَدْ أَيِسَ مِنْ آخِرَتِهِ يَتَمَتَّعُ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا

“Abu Bakr (Ibn Abi Shayba) informed us and said: Abu Mu’awiya informed us and said: A’mash from Shaqiq (i.e., Abu Wail) and him from Masruq informed us that he said: When he (Masruq) was at Silsilah, bronze statues had passed before him to be sold. Masruq said: If I had known this to be easy, I would have taken the duty; however I fear he will torture me and forbid me from doing so. Wallahi (By Allah)!.. I do not know from which of the two he is: a man whose bad actions are beautified for him or a man who has lost hope in Akhirah (hereafter) and is keeping busy with Dunya (world; wordly life)?”” (Ibn Abi Shayba, Musannaf, #22245; Maktabat’ur Rushd)
 
The Rijaal of Abu Shayba up until Abu Mu’awiya is the same as Tabari. As Abu Mu’awiya who carries the patronymic, Darir was viewed as being just in general, alongside being spoken of having problems with his memory. (See Siyaru A’lam’in Nubala, 9/73-78)

As seen, the two great imams of the Ahl'us Sunnah, Tabari and Ibn Abi Shayba, informs us that Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) from amongst the Ashab (companions) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) sold statues. Ibn Abi Shayba mentioning this in the 'Bab (chapter)' regarding the sale of idols, right after mentioning the Hadith regarding the sale of idols being Haraam (unlawful), shows that the statues mentioned here are worshiped idols. In fact, Sarahsi had informed these sold items to be idols and stated:

فَيَكُونُ دَلِيلًا لِأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ - فِي جَوَازِ بَيْعِ الصَّنَمِ، وَالصَّلِيبِ مِمَّنْ يَعْبُدُهُ كَمَا هُوَ طَرِيقَةُ الْقِيَاسِ

”The event became evidence to Abu Hanifa (rahimehullah) regarding the sale of the idol and the cross, to those who worship them. This is the requirement of Qiyas (analogy).” (Sarahsi, al-Mabsut, 24/47)

As Sarahsi stated in the related text, (foremost students of Abu Hanifa) Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf have considered the sale of idols to be Haraam in opposition to their teacher.
 
Essentially other scholars have made Ijmaa (consensus) regarding the sale of idols being Haraam. Ibn Battal (rahimahullah) mentions this Ijmaa (consensus). (Sharhu Sahih Bukhari, 6/360) In principle this matter is established stable by Nass (textual proof). Rasulullah (sallalahi alayhi wa sallam) stated:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ حَرَّمَ بَيْعَ الْخَمْرِ، وَالْمَيْتَةِ، وَالْخِنْزِيرِ وَالْأَصْنَامِ

“Allah and his Rasul has forbidden the sale of wine (intoxicants), carcass (dead meat), pork and idols." (Bukhari, #2236; Muslim #1581 from Jabir ibn Abdillah radiyallahu anh)

In the last volume of his Zad’ul Maad, Ibn Qayyim (rahimahullah) explains this Hadith and the matter of selling idols extensively, in the section regarding trade; however, as regards the explanation of this Hadith he stated the following:

وَأَمَّا تَحْرِيمُ بَيْعِ الْأَصْنَامِ، فَيُسْتَفَادُ مِنْهُ تَحْرِيمُ بَيْعِ كُلِّ آلَةٍ مُتَّخَذَةٍ لِلشِّرْكِ عَلَى أَيِّ وَجْهٍ كَانَتْ، وَمِنْ أَيِّ نَوْعٍ كَانَتْ صَنَمًا أَوْ وَثَنًا أَوْ صَلِيبًا، وَكَذَلِكَ الْكُتُبُ الْمُشْتَمِلَةُ عَلَى الشِّرْكِ، وَعِبَادَةِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ، فَهَذِهِ كُلُّهَا يَجِبُ إِزَالَتُهَا وَإِعْدَامُهَا، وَبَيْعُهَا ذَرِيعَةٌ إِلَى اقْتِنَائِهَا وَاتِّخَاذِهَا، فَهُوَ أَوْلَى بِتَحْرِيمِ الْبَيْعِ مِنْ كُلِّ مَا عَدَاهَا

”When it comes to the sale of idols being Haraam, that which is understood from this Hukm is that all tools of any type which are attained to associate partnership (to Allah) such as an idol, a cross, a statue and the likes, are Haraam. The Hukm is the same regarding books that are about Shirk and Ibadaah (worship) to other than Allah. All of these must be destroyed. The sale of such things will lead to others buying them and become afflicted by Fitnah. For this reason it is more fitting for their sale to be Haraam than any other. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Zaad'ul Maad)

As clearly understood from the sentences of Ibn'ul Qayyim, he literally mentions those idols worshiped besides Allah and not just regular ornaments or statues. He also uses the assertion of Haraam, not Kufr (disbelief) regarding their sales. Not a single letter of narration can be brought from other scholars stating the sales of idols being Kufr that expels one from Din (religion i.e., Islam). Essentially, in the Hadith regarding the issue, it clearly states the sales of idols to be Haraam, and there is no evidence in it or in any other Nass regarding it being Kufr. It is necessary to go as far as the Nass goes and stop where it stops.

As seen even when Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) and Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) permit it, let alone passing the Hukm of being Kufr, their view is a Shazz (exceptional) unregarded statement.  However, none from among the scholars has mentioned them to be Kafir due to permitting the sales of idols.

Above all no right-minded Sunni can have the opinion of Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) being a Kafir because he sold idols to the Kuffar (pl., Kafir; disbelievers). That which has attracted our attention while researching this matter is that the Rafidhi Shiite have used this narration to vilify Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh), moreover some contemporary Shiite authors have tried to prove Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) to be a polytheist and an idol worshiper.

Some other contemporaries have endeavored to prove this narration to be Mawdu (fabricated). Whereas this Hadith will not illustrate, that Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) is, God forbid, a Munafiq (hypocrite). For Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) made an erroneous Ijtihaad (conviction), not because he found Kufr to be good, but he had sold those idols merely to establish income for the Islamic government. From this, it cannot be established that he viewed the worship of idols to be good.

As previously mentioned many times, being a medium for the Kufr of a Kafir is Kufr only when this is due to being pleased with Kufr, otherwise it will not be Kufr.

Aliyy’ul Qari has mentioned this in his Sharh (explanation) of Fiqh’ul Akbar. Therefore, just as the Rafidhi establishing Takfir of Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) from the sale of idols is Baatil (false), the contemporary Ahl'ul Ifrat (People of Excess) who makes Takfir of those who are mediator for the Kafir performing Kufr is Baatil. It is understood that besides the presence of the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah ruins within today’s scheme-less Takfiri people, the Rafidhi mentality exists in them as well. The reason is because, it is the trait of the vindictive Rafidhi to try to prove those leaders and others they are in opposition with to be Kafir by blind logic. The Ahl'us Sunnah has never attempted to make Takfir of their opposition by means of bogus methods, and has never deviated from justice.       

I have not come across positive nor negative comments of scholars regarding these narrations. Nonetheless as pointed out while mentioning the narrators, these narrators are Sika reporters. Relying upon the following statement of Imam Ahmad some have tried to prove them as Mawdu (fabricated):

قال مُهنّا: سألتُ أحمد [يعني ابن حنبل] عن حديث الأعمش، عن أبي وائل، أن معاوية لعب بالأصنام! فقال: ما أغلَطَ أهلَ الكوفة على أصحاب رسول الله [صلى الله عليه وسلم]. ولم يُصَحِّح الحديث، وقال: تَكَلَّمَ به رجلٌ من الشيعة

“Muhanna stated: When Ahmad (Ibn Hanbal) was asked regarding the Hadith Amash related from Abu Wail about Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) playing with idols he replied: What boldness the Ahl'ul Kufa (people of the city Kufa) shows against the Ashab (companions) of Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wa sallam). With this he did not confirm the Hadith Sahih (sound) and stated: a man from among the Shia must have said this. (al-Muntahab min Ilal’il Hallal, #134)

It is not clear that the Hadith Imam Ahmad speaks of is the same as the one we presented. If noticed, it is mentioned in the Hadith Imam Ahmad narrated that Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) plays with the idols. The above-mentioned Hadith is regarding the sale of idols. Also as mentioned previously Amash and Abu Wail are Sika from the Rijaal of Bukhari and Muslim, it is a distant possibility that they are accused with fabricating Hadith.

If we suppose that, the Hadith regarding the sale of idols is not Sahih it will not affect our matter because our opposition claim all mediation done regarding the Kafir performing Kufr will be Kufr and furthermore they claim those who do not make Takfir of these mediators will become Kafir as well. According to this method in this narration, the Salaf are attributed Kufr. According to them Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh) had become a mediator by selling idols to the idol worshipers. Moreover, although Masruq had seen this happen, and although he did condemn it he did not make Takfir of Mu’awiya (radiyallahu anh).

Muhaddithun (scholars of Hadith) such as Tabari and Abi Shayba had narrated this narration, which relates Kufr to the Sahaba (companions) and Tabiin (next generation after Sahaba), by confirming it with the intention of bringing evidence. Where as, regarding the matter that is referred as “directing the Kafir”; according to the understanding of those ignorant people who harp on the same string they (the narrators) should not have written the narrations into their books. Even if they did, they should have pointed out that it is fabricated by making Tanzih (distant) of the Salaf from such great Kufr(!), let alone make Istidlaal (deduction) with this narration. Since they cannot do this, in the eyes of the method-less Takfiris, because they were silent against this Kufr (!) the two great Imams of Sunnah have entered Kufr. We make Tanzih of the Salaf'us Salihin (Righteous Predecessors) from such Baatil claim and request from our Lord to give Hidayah (guidance) to these Juhala (pl., Jahl; ignorant).

As seen, the Madhhab of this Ahl'ul Dalalah (People of Misguidance) necessitates the Takfir of the Ashab, the Tabiin, and other Imams from the Salaf. However, these fools are not aware of the length their claims go. We are clarifying the matter in depth so that they may notice the gravity of their claim, and repent.

In summary as clearly seen, the sale of idols, which are items of associating partnership to Allah, is Haraam. An individual will not become Kafir with this act unless he is pleased with Kufr and aims to love Kufr. However, in acts, as such when ones actions do not carry any other meaning but Kufr then in this case, Takfir will be upon him.

In his Sharh of Fiqh'ul Akbar, Aliyy’ul Qari quotes the following Fatawa (religious verdicts) from a book named Tatimma:

“If a Muslim makes an idol he will be Kafir. The reason is, with this he will have been pleased with the idol and will have encouraged it.”

As seen here the scholar who has given this Fatawa has taken ‘being pleased with Kufr’ as principle. For this reason the two Fatawa will not contradict one another. For, during the sale of idols seeking worldly pleasure weighs in heavy, while the production of idols weighs in heavy with being pleased of idol worshiping.

Again, the matters we have narrated regarding the sale and production of idols establish that the mediation of the Kuffar performing Kufr is a matter, which requires detail. If the action of the individual who is supporting the Kafir to perform Kufr carries a meaning other than love of Kufr, Takfir will not be upon him until the matter is clarified hence Hukm cannot be passed on anyone according to probability. While the Salaf gets into detail regarding the sale of idols to the idol worshipers, the Takfir of some ignorant individuals of today, regarding mediation of the Kuffar and their courts, without getting into the details is baseless and this act goes as far as making Takfir of the Salaf.

We seek refuge in Allah from such ignorance. The reason we brought such narrations to daylight is to prove how rotten the method-less Takfiri mentality is and not to encourage people to act upon Baatil such as the sale of idols. For, as clearly seen this act is Haraam. Just because an act is not Kufr it does not mean it is permissible, unlike those ignorant people who have no share in Din claim to be. We take this opportunity to remind this. Wallahu A'lam (And Allah knows best)!... Walhamdulillahi Rabbil A’lam’in (All praise is for Allah, the Lord of the worlds)!..

[Julaybib]

The Hukm of Wishing Someone to Die Upon Kufr (Disbelief)

One of the things, which could be mistakenly understood as ‘showing consent to Kufr’, is to desire for an individual to die upon Kufr. By this, the individual will desire the person he cursed to associate partners to Allah his entire life and die upon it so that he (the cursed) will enter Jahannam (Hell). As this does outwardly seem like requesting the continuation of Shirk, he will not become Kafir if the individual desires this wish for revenge not because he tolerates Shirk. Allah Ta’ala stated:

وَقَالَ مُوسَى رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ آتَيْتَ فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَأَهُ زِينَةً وَأَمْوَالًا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا رَبَّنَا لِيُضِلُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِكَ رَبَّنَا اطْمِسْ عَلَى أَمْوَالِهِمْ وَاشْدُدْ عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُوا حَتَّى يَرَوُا الْعَذَابَ الْأَلِيمَ

"Musa prayed: Our Lord! Thou hast indeed bestowed on Firawn (Pharaoh) and his Chiefs splendor and wealth in the life of the present, and so, Our Lord, they mislead (men) from Thy Path. Deface our Lord, the features of their wealth, and send hardness to their hearts, so they will not believe until they see the grievous chastisement." (Yunus 10/88)

Imam Tabari (rahimahullah) stated the following regarding ‘send hardness to their hearts’ mentioned in the aforementioned Ayah:

فإنه يعني: واطبع عليها حتى لا تلين ولا تنشرح بالإيمان

“What is meant is: Seal their hearts such that it will not soften for Iman (faith) and does not become cheerful.”

After this, Ibn Jarir (rahimahullah) narrates the views of the Mufassirun (Tafsir scholars) from the Salaf (predecessor) regarding this. According to what he narrates:

Ibn Abbaas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) explained this as ‘seal their hearts’.

Mujahid (rahimahullah) explained it as ‘tie their hearts tight upon Dalalah (misguidance)’.

Dahhak (rahimahullah) stated, أهلكهم كفارًا ‘Destroy them as Kuffar (pl., Kafir; disbelievers)’.

As seen Musa (alayhi salam) made Du'a to Allah requesting Firawn (Pharaoh) and those with him to die upon Kufr. In his response to the Mu'tazilah, the denier of Qadr (fate), who say ‘Allah will not will Kufr, because if He did will Kufr, Kufr would be permissible for us’ Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) stated:

ثمَّ نقُول لَهُم وَبِاللَّهِ تَعَالَى التَّوْفِيق لسنا ننكر فِي حَال مَا يُبَاح لنا فِيهِ إِرَادَة الْكفْر من بعض النَّاس فقد أثنى الله عز وَجل على ابْن آدم فِي قَوْله لِأَخِيهِ {إِنِّي أُرِيد أَن تبوء بإثمي وإثمك فَتكون من أَصْحَاب النَّار وَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الظَّالِمين} فَهَذَا ابْن آدم الْفَاضِل قد أَرَادَ أَن يكون أَخُوهُ من أَصْحَاب النَّار وَأَن يبوء بإثمه مَعَ إِثْم نَفسه وَقد صوب الله عز وَجل قَول مُوسَى وَهَارُون عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَام {رَبنَا اطْمِسْ على أَمْوَالهم وَاشْدُدْ على قُلُوبهم فَلَا يُؤمنُوا حَتَّى يرَوا الْعَذَاب الْأَلِيم قَالَ قد أجيبت دعوتكما} فَهَذَا مُوسَى وَهَارُون عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَام قد أَرَادَا وأحبا أَن لَا يُؤمن فِرْعَوْن وَأَن يَمُوت كَافِرًا إِلَى النَّار وَقد جَاءَ عَن رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم إِنَّه دَعَا على عتبَة بن أبي وَقاص أَن يَمُوت كَافِرًا إِلَى النَّار فَكَانَ كَذَلِك

With the Tawfiq (success) of Allah we’ll say (as a response to Mu'tazilah): We do not deny the conditions which requesting Kufr for some people is permissible. For, regarding the brother of Bani Adam (the son of Adam; mankind), Allah Ta’ala praisingly informed:

إِنِّي أُرِيد أَن تبوء بإثمي وإثمك فَتكون من أَصْحَاب النَّار وَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الظَّالِمين 

"For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.” (al-Ma’idah 5/29)

In the same manner Allah Ta’ala approved the words of Musa (alayhi salam) and Harun (alayhim salam):

رَبنَا اطْمِسْ على أَمْوَالهم وَاشْدُدْ على قُلُوبهم فَلَا يُؤمنُوا حَتَّى يرَوا الْعَذَاب الْأَلِيم قَالَ قد أجيبت دعوتكما

"Musa prayed: Our Lord! Thou hast indeed bestowed on Firawn and his Chiefs splendor and wealth in the life of the present, and so, Our Lord, they mislead (men) from Thy Path." (Yunus 10/88)

With this, Musa (alayhi salam) and Harun (alayhi salam) wished and desired Firawn to not have faith and die as a Kafir, and enter the fire upon this. Likewise, it is narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) made Du'a for Utba ibn Abi Waqqas to die as a Kafir and enter the Fire. And it occurred just as.”

Finally, Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) ends his statements with the following:

أَي فرق بَين لعن الْكَافِر والظالم وَالدُّعَاء عَلَيْهِ بِالْعَذَابِ فِي النَّار وَبَين الدُّعَاء عَلَيْهِ بِأَن يَمُوت غير متوب عَلَيْهِ والمسرة بكلا الْأَمريْنِ وحسبنا الله وَنعم الْوَكِيل   
 
“What is the difference between La'nah (cursing) the Kafir and Dhalim (oppressor) and making Du'a for him to be punished in Fire; and making Du'a so that he dies without repenting or being delighted in both situations?” (Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal, 3/90)

[Julaybib]

Aliyy'ul Qari narrated the following from the Hanafi scholars regarding this matter: “The following is stated in the book named al-Hulasa: “If a person makes Dua for another and says may Allah take him upon the belief of Kufr, he will become Kafir. The reason is; it is showing consent to Kufr. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Fadl stated, ‘It is not Kufr to make Dua for the Kafir in this manner. The first Fatawa is general. The second one; meaning this one is a particular Fatawa. It declares that it is Kufr to make Dua for the Kufr of a Muslim. The reality is, if the one who made this statement said it with the intention of revenge he will not become Kafir. The Qarina (presumption) of Dua is a witness to this purpose. Many statements will come regarding this matter.

“The following is stated in the book named al-Jawahir“: If an individual says, ‘May Allah take your Islam from you’ to a Muslim and if another says Amin!.. to this he will become Kafir. Alternatively, by this statement if it is intended that so and so becomes Kafir, he (the intender) will be Kafir. On the other hand, if he says, ‘May Allah take him out from this world without Iman’, or ‘as a Kafir’, or ‘may Allah kill him without Iman and as a Kafir’ or ‘may Allah keep him in Jahannam (Hellfire) forever’ will become Kafir. Meaning the Hukm is as such if he views Kufr as good and is pleased with it by heart. However if he states such statements in order to take revenge from a Dhalim (oppressor) he will not be Kafir.
 
“The following is recorded in the book named al-Muhit, ”The one who is pleased with his own Kufr will be Kafir.” There is Ittifaq (agreement) regarding this. There is Ikhtilaaf (disagreement) regarding being pleased with the Kufr of someone else. According to what the Ulama of Islam mention, being pleased with the Kufr of another will only be Kufr when it (the Kufr) is permitted and seen as good. However if he does not permit it nor see it to be good and states ‘I want the evil doer who troubles me to die upon Kufr so that Allah Ta’ala will take my revenge’ then it will not be Kufr.
 
The truth to our claim will be established if someone makes Dua thinking of Allah Ta’ala’s Ayah:

وَقَالَ مُوسَى رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ آتَيْتَ فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَأَهُ زِينَةً وَأَمْوَالًا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا رَبَّنَا لِيُضِلُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِكَ رَبَّنَا اطْمِسْ عَلَى أَمْوَالِهِمْ وَاشْدُدْ عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُوا حَتَّى يَرَوُا الْعَذَابَ الْأَلِيمَ

"Musa prayed: Our Lord! Thou hast indeed bestowed on Firawn and his Chiefs splendor and wealth in the life of the present, and so, Our Lord, they mislead (men) from Thy Path. Deface our Lord, the features of their wealth, and send hardness to their hearts, so they will not believe until they see the grievous chastisement." (Yunus 10/88)

According to this if a person says to a Kafir, ‘May Allah kill you upon Kufr, or may Allah take your Iman and not show you the smallest mercy’ he will not become Kafir. We are Muttali (informed) upon this following statement narrated from Abu Hanifa: “It is Kufr to be pleased with the Kufr of another.” This statement was not given an explanation. It is possible this sentence is from the statements of the author of (the book) Muhit or (the book) al-Jami’ regarding this matter. The answer according to both possibilities is that, the narration from Abu Hanifa is short, meaning when it is absolute; we will explain it according to the ruling of the Hanafi.” (Aliyy’ul Qari, Sharh'ul Fiqh’il Akbar, 75, Dar’ul Kutub’il Ilmiyya, Bairut 2007, 296)

[Julaybib]

Shihab ad-Din Qarafi (rahimahullah) from the Maliki Usuol scholars in his renowned book, al-Furuq (Differences) stated the following while describing the 241st difference, which is the description of differences between the Masiyah (sin) that are Kufr (disbelief) and those that are not Kufr:

وَأَصْلُ الْكُفْرِ إنَّمَا هُوَ انْتِهَاكٌ خَاصٌّ لِحُرْمَةِ الرُّبُوبِيَّةِ إمَّا بِالْجَهْلِ بِوُجُودِ الصَّانِعِ أَوْ صِفَاتِهِ الْعُلَى وَيَكُونُ الْكُفْرُ بِفِعْلٍ كَرَمْيِ الْمُصْحَفِ فِي الْقَاذُورَاتِ أَوْ السُّجُودِ لِلصَّنَمِ أَوْ التَّرَدُّدِ لِلْكَنَائِسِ فِي أَعْيَادِهِمْ بِزِيِّ النَّصَارَى، وَمُبَاشَرَةِ أَحْوَالِهِمْ أَوْ جَحْدِ مَا عُلِمَ مِنْ الدِّينِ بِالضَّرُورَةِ

“The Asl (foundation) of Kufr is to stomp over the respect of Rububiyyah (Oneness of Allah’s Lordship) particularly. This will take place whether it is Jahl (ignorantly) denying the existence of the Creator or through the denial of His lofty Sifaat (pl., Sifat attributes), Kufr will take place through actions. Throwing the Mushaf (collection of pages i.e., Qur’an) into filth, making Sajdah (prostration) to idols, going to the churches of the Christians during their Holidays dressed like them, and also doing things peculiar to them or like denying something which is known by Dharurah (necessity) in Din (religion i.e., Islam)…”

He (rahimahullah) continues and states:

وَأَلْحَقَ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ بِالْكُفْرِ إرَادَةَ الْكُفْرِ كَبِنَاءِ الْكَنَائِسِ لِيَكْفُرَ فِيهَا أَوْ قَتْلِ نَبِيٍّ مَعَ اعْتِقَادِهِ صِحَّةَ رِسَالَتِهِ لِيُمِيتَ شَرِيعَتَهُ، وَمِنْهُ تَأْخِيرُ إسْلَامِ مَنْ أَتَى لِيُسْلِمَ عَلَى يَدَيْك فَتُشِيرُ عَلَيْهِ بِتَأْخِيرِ الْإِسْلَامِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ إرَادَةٌ لِبَقَاءِ الْكُفْرِ.وَلَا يَنْدَرِجُ فِي إرَادَةِ الْكُفْرِ الدُّعَاءُ بِسُوءِ الْخَاتِمَةِ عَلَى مَنْ تُعَادِيهِ وَإِنْ كَانَ فِيهِ إرَادَةُ الْكُفْرِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مَقْصُودًا فِيهِ انْتِهَاكُ حُرْمَةِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى بَلْ إذَايَةُ الْمَدْعُوِّ عَلَيْهِ، وَلَيْسَ مِنْهُ أَيْضًا اخْتِيَارُ الْإِمَامِ عَقْدَ الْجِزْيَةِ عَلَى الْأُسَارَى عَلَى الْقَتْلِ الْمُوجِبِ لِمَحْوِ الْكُفْرِ مِنْ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَفِي عَقْدِ الْجِزْيَةِ إرَادَةُ اسْتِمْرَارِ الْكُفْرِ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ فَهُوَ فِيهِ إرَادَةُ الْكُفْرِ؛ لِأَنَّ مَقْصُودَهُ تَوَقُّعُ الْإِسْلَامِ مِنْهُمْ أَوْ مِنْ ذَرَارِيِّهِمْ إذَا بَقُوا أَحْيَاءَ وَفِي تَعْجِيلِ الْقَتْلِ عَلَيْهِمْ سَدُّ بَابِ الْإِيمَانِ مِنْهُمْ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِمْ فَالْمَقْصُودُ تَوَقُّعُ الْإِيمَانِ وَحُصُولُ الْكُفْرِ وَقَعَ بِالْعَرَضِ فَهُوَ مَشْرُوعٌ مَأْمُورٌ بِهِ وَاجِبٌ عِنْدَ تَعْيِينِ مُقْتَضِيهِ وَيُثَابُ عَلَيْهِ الْإِمَامُ وَالْفَاعِلُ لَهُ بِخِلَافِ الدُّعَاءِ بِسُوءِ الْخَاتِمَةِ فَهُوَ مَنْهِيٌّ عَنْهُ وَيَأْثَمُ قَائِلُهُ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكْفُرْ بِذَلِكَ.

“Abu’l Hasan al-Ashari (rahimahullah) included the request of Kufr to be Kufr. According to this, building a church for the execution of Kufr, killing a prophet to destroy his Shari’ah (law; legal system); although believing in his truthness, likewise delaying the one who came to become a Muslim by the signaling (waving) of the hand etc., is Kufr. For, within all of these, there is the desire to keep Kufr alive and its continuation. Due to ones enmity towards someone, the desire of his death with a bad end is not included in this scope. Although it seems here that, there is the request of Kufr, the intent of the individual is not to stomp over the respect of Allah Ta’ala, and on the contrary, his request is that the individual he cursed suffers. In the same manner the Imam of the Muslimin requesting Jizyah (tax taken from Dhimmis; non-Muslim subjects that are protected by the Islamic State) from the captives and in this scope making them continue to live upon Kufr is not included in this whereas, in order to destroy the Kufr in their hearts they need to be killed. In the agreement of Jizyah there is the request of the Kufr in their hearts continuing and this means requesting the continuation of Kufr. The aim of letting them live is to ensure they or their descendents enter Islam. Rushing to kill the Kuffar will prevent them or their descendents from becoming Muslim. The aim is to enter them into Iman, Kufr is Aridhi (exceptional; casual/fortuitous) established. Therefore differing from requesting someone to die upon Kufr, this is something requested and commanded in the sight of the Shari’ah. The government leader etc., that does this will even gain reward for this. The one who requests an individual to die upon Kufr has been forbidden from this although he is not made Takfir of…” (for complete statements of Qarafi see: Anwar’ul Buruq fi Anwa’il Furuq, 4/1279, Dar’us Salam, Cairo, 1421/2001)

[Julaybib]

These narrations brought from the scholars put forth the details of “consent to Kufr is Kufr”. By blind logic, the Hukm (ruling) of Kufr cannot be passed upon everyone regarding this matter. Otherwise, it would necessitate entering, the freeing of the slaves and receival of Jizyah in exchange and even letting them to worship in their churches; into this extent. Alternatively, even the narrated requests of the Prophets would have been evaluated as consent to Kufr; clearly all this is Baatil (false). Then it has been established once more that regarding the consent to the Kufr of someone else, details need to be taken into consideration and it has to be restricted to having love for Kufr, and being pleased with it. The following statement Imam Qarafi (rahimahullah) used regarding the one who desires another to die upon Kufr for the sake of revenge indicates this.

“The intent of the individual is not to stomp over the respect of Allah Ta’ala, and on the contrary his request is that the individual he cursed suffers.”

Wallahu A’lam (And Allah knows best)!..